NationStates Jolt Archive

So today I was talking with my friends and my friends were talking about Medicare, and Medicaid, and the subject of Social Security was brought up. I made the observation that by the time we retire (most of us are in our early twenties) Social Security will not be there for us, so why should we have to pay into a system that we're not going to see a dime of? They all agree. I find it pretty insulting that not only do I have to pay into my 401k (which I don't mind) and into Social Security at the same time, and yet I'll only see half of my investment returned to me. Sooner or later, the government is going to have to do something about Social Security, I'm in favor of starting to dismantle it and start moving towards private Social Security, like 401ks and other investment.

I've already started to do research about how other people were able to take the government to court, and actually get out of paying for Social Security. Is it selfish, yes, but I'm not going to pay into a system that not going to give me anything in return. I would rather take the money that I would've paid into social security, and put it into my 401k. I suggest to my friends that they do the same thing. If enough people start winning cases to withdraw their contribution to Social Security and keeping it for their own retirement fund, then maybe some change will come about. But knowing our government, they'd just let Social Security fail, which it probably should in the long term.

The Government will hold onto SS for as long as it can because THEY control the cash, and collect taxes from it.

Everything would be better if the government stopped SS from taking in cash, and a portion of the regular income taxes filled the coffers of the SS enough to pay off the people who put money in.

Meh. The baby boomers are sort of in power right now - once they die, we'll have free reign. :p I'm optimistic that we can roll back most of the garbage that they helped push through, or in the case of SS, kept going. ;)

The Government will hold onto SS for as long as it can because THEY control the cash, and collect taxes from it.

Everything would be better if the government stopped SS from taking in cash, and a portion of the regular income taxes filled the coffers of the SS enough to pay off the people who put money in.

That'll never happen.

Meh. The baby boomers are sort of in power right now - once they die, we'll have free reign. :p I'm optimistic that we can roll back most of the garbage that they helped push through, or in the case of SS, kept going. ;)

Meh, I doubt it. I think the best route is to encourage people to petition to be excluded from paying into SS, and then have them take the money that would've gone into SS and put it in their own retirement fund. If enough people do that, then SS will die off which it should do.

Personally, I fall more inline with those who speak from true knowledge when they say that SS will be fine for at least another 70 years, and likely will be fine afterward too. The only problem I see with it right now is people resentfully bitching about it because it takes a tiny slice of their paycheck. So, in essence, I have absolutely no problems with it.

Meh, I doubt it. I think the best route is to encourage people to petition to be excluded from paying into SS, and then have them take the money that would've gone into SS and put it in their own retirement fund. If enough people do that, then SS will die off which it should do.

Eh. I don't think most people can opt out. Certain state workers and certain income levels, maybe. But not the rest of us.

Personally, I fall more inline with those who speak from true knowledge when they say that SS will be fine for at least another 70 years, and likely will be fine afterward too. The only problem I see with it right now is people resentfully bitching about it because it takes a tiny slice of their paycheck. So, in essence, I have absolutely no problems with it.

So you don't mind that you'll never see a dime of it, and that while you're paying into SS, you're also having to pay into your own retirement fund at the same time?

Eh. I don't think most people can opt out. Certain state workers and certain income levels, maybe. But not the rest of us.

There's only one way to find out. God knows we've tried to privatized SS, and that didn't go over so well. I doubt that our generation will do any better because SS provides money to the government that they can take and put it towards their own agenda.

Personally, I fall more inline with those who speak from true knowledge when they say that SS will be fine for at least another 70 years, and likely will be fine afterward too. The only problem I see with it right now is people resentfully bitching about it because it takes a tiny slice of their paycheck. So, in essence, I have absolutely no problems with it.

Eh. I think the SS tax rate is around 12%. I wouldn't call that small. And I wouldn't believe any numbers that told you SS will be 'fine' for anywhere near that long. :p

So you don't mind that you'll never see a dime of it,

What in the world ever gave you the idea that we're the same age???

and that while you're paying into SS, you're also having to pay into your own retirement fund at the same time?

No response here. Not spoiling for a fight, just wanted to say that I don't agree with you... at all.

What in the world ever gave you the idea that we're the same age???

Ok, so how old are you?

No response here. Not spoiling for a fight, just wanted to say that I don't agree with you... at all.

Ok, but tell me, are you really content with the fact that people are having to pay into two retirement fund, and they'll only see a return on one of them? Why would anyone would pay that much money but only see half of their investment returned? It's insane and a waste of money. If you give the people the option to either pay into both or one, 99% of them will probably pay into the one that gives them the return.

Ok, but tell me, are you really content with the fact that people are having to pay into two retirement fund, and they'll only see a return on one of them? Why would anyone would pay that much money but only see half of their investment returned? It's insane and a waste of money. If you give the people the option to either pay into both or one, 99% of them will probably pay into the one that gives them the return.

Half if they're lucky. When you figure in the immense operating costs, and the sliver you get back, you're looking at nothing more than a pyramid scheme.

SS worked when FDR signed it because it took money from ALL Americans and gave it to the *already wealthy* Immigrants and blacks never collected SS payments, nor did poor whites. It was a middle-class subsidy, by design. Domestics and farm laborers couldn't collect. We're stuck with the remnants of it.

A broken and outdated system for a broken and outdated group of people. Seems about right.

Half if they're lucky. When you figure in the immense operating costs, and the sliver you get back, you're looking at nothing more than a pyramid scheme.

SS worked when FDR signed it because it took money from ALL Americans and gave it to the *already wealthy* Immigrants and blacks never collected SS payments, nor did poor whites. It was a middle-class subsidy, by design. Domestics and farm laborers couldn't collect. We're stuck with the remnants of it.

The half I was talking about was the private retirement fund, not SS.

A broken and outdated system for a broken and outdated group of people. Seems about right.

Again, I take heart that the baby boom generation is on its way out. :p

Social Security is, most certainly, in need of massive, massive reforms. Otherwise, we run the risk of literally bankrupting the government.

The half I was talking about was the private retirement fund, not SS.

Eh. Those are no guarantee in any case.

Social Security is, most certainly, in need of massive, massive reforms. Otherwise, we run the risk of literally bankrupting the government.

Personally I don't care about the government, I just want to keep the money that goes into SS for my own retirement fund.

I get the impression the US government is intentionally destroying it so it can get rid of it and spend the money on other things like ... very large explosive pointy sticks.

Ok, so how old are you?

Obviously not in my twenties ;)

Ok, but tell me, are you really content with the fact that people are having to pay into two retirement fund, and they'll only see a return on one of them?

Well, you see, that point right there is where I disagree with you. Simple as that really. You have your economists and other experts that have convinced you of the gloom and doom for you in your golden years if SS isn't "fixed". Whereas I have and entirely different set of people that I choose to listen to that say the diametric opposite. All these people come backed up with numbers, figures, charts, and rhetoric. We both have, what we think of as rock solid, reasons for believing what we believe about SS. I know from previous, and at times quite vitriolic, arguments with you that I have no hope of convincing you of anything I have to say. And, I'm reasonably certain you feel the same about me. So, I choose instead to simply voice my disagreement, and also say that privatization is not the magic bullet that solves all issues.

Personally I don't care about the government, I just want to keep the money that goes into SS for my own retirement fund.

At the rate the SS system is going, so would I. I know that I could make far better investments than the government could.

So today I was talking with my friends and my friends were talking about Medicare, and Medicaid, and the subject of Social Security was brought up. I made the observation that by the time we retire (most of us are in our early twenties) Social Security will not be there for us, so why should we have to pay into a system that we're not going to see a dime of? They all agree. I find it pretty insulting that not only do I have to pay into my 401k (which I don't mind) and into Social Security at the same time, and yet I'll only see half of my investment returned to me. Sooner or later, the government is going to have to do something about Social Security, I'm in favor of starting to dismantle it and start moving towards private Social Security, like 401ks and other investment.

I've already started to do research about how other people were able to take the government to court, and actually get out of paying for Social Security. Is it selfish, yes, but I'm not going to pay into a system that not going to give me anything in return. I would rather take the money that I would've paid into social security, and put it into my 401k. I suggest to my friends that they do the same thing. If enough people start winning cases to withdraw their contribution to Social Security and keeping it for their own retirement fund, then maybe some change will come about. But knowing our government, they'd just let Social Security fail, which it probably should in the long term.
Just in case no one else has pointed it out yet--if we do nothing to Social Security as it is right now, and if the economy performs worse than it has over the last 75 years, then we still don't start having to dip into the Social Security Trust Fund until 2041--that's under the most pessimistic conditions. If the economy grows as it has for the last 75 years on average, then we don't have to dip into the trust fund until 2076.

In short, the people who are telling you Social Security won't be there are either stupid or lying. If they're people who work on Wall Street, they're the second.

You can talk all you want about the better return you'd likely get by investing yourself, but the point of Social Security is safety, not big return. The idea is that this will be there, no matter what. Your 401K is meant to be a supplement, so that if you lose it in a major stock market crash, you're not completely fucked, which would happen to any number of people if we get rid of Social Security. In today's uncertain world, we need more safety nets, not fewer.

Just in case no one else has pointed it out yet--if we do nothing to Social Security as it is right now, and if the economy performs worse than it has over the last 75 years, then we still don't start having to dip into the Social Security Trust Fund until 2041--that's under the most pessimistic conditions. If the economy grows as it has for the last 75 years on average, then we don't have to dip into the trust fund until 2076.

In short, the people who are telling you Social Security won't be there are either stupid or lying. If they're people who work on Wall Street, they're the second.

You can talk all you want about the better return you'd likely get by investing yourself, but the point of Social Security is safety, not big return. The idea is that this will be there, no matter what. Your 401K is meant to be a supplement, so that if you lose it in a major stock market crash, you're not completely fucked, which would happen to any number of people if we get rid of Social Security. In today's uncertain world, we need more safety nets, not fewer.

We need safety nets that actually work. If Social Security is working, then why are so many people investing in their own retirement fund? Hell my parents are nearing retirement age themselves, and they know that they won't see a dime of it, thats why they have their own nest egg, the only generation to actually get a return on their investment into SS when they retire was my grandparent's generation.

Social Security is a broken down system, and either needs to be fixed so that those who invest in it actually get out what they put in after 40 years of working, or it needs to be put to rest and let people take the money that would've been invested in SS, take that money and put it in their own retirement fund.

People are investing in their own retirement funds, Wilgrove, because it gives them extra money, much like people save and invest in stock to gain extra money. They don't necessarily do it because they have to, but because they want to.

Besides, my dad is going to NEED Social Security...as it is he's still working to keep the family going and he turns sixty-five in November.

So think about that, Wilgrove, before you advocate dismantling a system that (will) help not only my family, but millions of others throughout the country.

We need safety nets that actually work. If Social Security is working, then why are so many people investing in their own retirement fund? Hell my parents are nearing retirement age themselves, and they know that they won't see a dime of it, thats why they have their own nest egg, the only generation to actually get a return on their investment into SS when they retire was my grandparent's generation.

Social Security is a broken down system, and either needs to be fixed so that those who invest in it actually get out what they put in after 40 years of working, or it needs to be put to rest and let people take the money that would've been invested in SS, take that money and put it in their own retirement fund.

Because Social Security was never meant to cover all your retirement expenses--it was meant to be a basic level of income so that old people wouldn't starve to death and be homeless on the streets. Retirement savings and home ownership was meant to cover the rest.

Look--here's what will happen if you get rid of Social Security and force people to invest on their own. Some will do quite well, some will do just enough to survive, and many will either not save or will get taken for everything by the same kind of unscrupulous fucks who ran Enron and ripped people out of their pensions. When that happens, the people of this nation will say "we can't just let old people starve to death on the streets" because we're not that kind of country, thank goodness, and so we'll provide--wait for it--some sort of Social Security safety net, and we'll be right back where we started.

But the important thing is this--Social Security is doing exactly what it was meant to do when it was designed decades ago, and it's doing it just fine. The people who are telling you otherwise are, as I said above, either stupid or lying. And if they work in the financial services industry, I guarantee you, it's the latter, because they stand to make a fuckload of money off Social Security if it's ever privatized.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but every citizen gives taxation (as in a part of their wealth) to a common public good for the payment of public assets in most countries such as postage, transport, employment in the public sector and yes social security.

As I like to say, it's either men in black or a mob with sticks who come and steal your wealth, take your pick.

But I am talking to someone who supports Ron Paul, so I guess I already know your clinically deranged.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but every citizen gives taxation (as in a part of their wealth) to a common public good for the payment of public assets in most countries such as postage, transport, employment in the public sector and yes social security.

Uh, yes, most countries take taxes.

Maybe I'm a bit deranged myself, but I don't see how that would burst anyone's bubble on this matter.

Or was the mere fact that most countries tax supposed to be a justification for each and every tax system that exists?

Eh. I think the SS tax rate is around 12%. I wouldn't call that small. And I wouldn't believe any numbers that told you SS will be 'fine' for anywhere near that long. :p

It's 6.2% of your average employee paycheck. But of course any employer has to match the OASDI rate for each of their employees, so the government gets 12.4% of each person's gross earnings. Quite the moneymaker, especially with the juicy taxes the government extracts from corporations, and with income tax everyone pays.

Safety net? Yeah, right.

Uh, yes, most countries take taxes.

Maybe I'm a bit deranged myself, but I don't see how that would burst anyone's bubble on this matter.

Or was the mere fact that most countries tax supposed to be a justification for each and every tax system that exists?

Well I am just thinking that if he support Paul he supports his policies such as abolishing the IRC and most, if not all taxes, which economists on all sides of the line have admitted will destroy the economy.

It's 6.2% of your average employee paycheck. But of course any employer has to match the OASDI rate for each of their employees, so the government gets 12.4% of each person's gross earnings. Quite the moneymaker, especially with the juicy taxes the government extracts from corporations, and with income tax everyone pays.

Safety net? Yeah, right.

Corporations pay dick, relatively speaking, in taxes, and they're among the biggest cheats (as well as the most rarely prosecuted) in the nation. We could take a significant chunk out of our yearly deficit if we made corporations pay what they actually owe.

My grandparents who can't afford anything except food and medicine and who'll be working as long as they're physically able appreciate your desire to completely ruin what little remains of their lives.

My grandparents who can't afford anything except food and medicine and who'll be working as long as they're physically able appreciate your desire to completely ruin what little remains of their lives.

I've already admitted that my desire to not pay into SS, and to see it either die off (which it probably will at some point) or go through a major overhaul, is well, selfish. Yes I am a selfish person who looks out for me espically when it comes to what happens to the taxes that I pay for out of my paycheck. Of course it if was up to me, we'd all be under the Fair Tax right now and our paychecks wouldn't get taxed.

I've already admitted that my desire to not pay into SS, and to see it either die off (which it probably will at some point) or go through a major overhaul, is well, selfish. Yes I am a selfish person who looks out for me espically when it comes to what happens to the taxes that I pay for out of my paycheck. Of course it if was up to me, we'd all be under the Fair Tax right now and our paychecks wouldn't get taxed.

And you'd be willing to live, uncomplainingly, with the consequences of your choices if, say, your investments went bad, or if the companies you invested in went broke through fraud committed by the people in charge of the companies? You'd be willing to live in poverty, homeless and hungry, on the street because your 401K didn't pan out, no fault of your own?

Well too bad--the rest of us aren't willing to let you do that. I guess we're bastands, but we're going to make sure you have Social Security, whether you want it or not.

And here's how I know that--look back to the real demise of George W. Bush's second term, and it wasn't the Iraq War or Hurricane Katrina. Those just finished him off. It was going after Social Security that killed his 2004 momentum, and rightly so.

At least President Bush, tried to work with both Republicans and Democrats in congress to make social security self supporting, not have 2 or 3 people supporting 4 or 5 for exsample.

Democrats in congress did a great attack job on President Bush on the social security issue.

While I may not agree with all the details that I read once on the Governement of Chile's individual retirement accounts, it is supposed to take care of this problem.

I've already admitted that my desire to not pay into SS, and to see it either die off (which it probably will at some point) or go through a major overhaul, is well, selfish. Yes I am a selfish person who looks out for me espically when it comes to what happens to the taxes that I pay for out of my paycheck. Of course it if was up to me, we'd all be under the Fair Tax right now and our paychecks wouldn't get taxed.
Pride in one's selfishness is either contemptible intellectual laziness or willful cruelty. Which is is with you?

At least President Bush, tried to work with both Republicans and Democrats in congress to make social security self supporting, not have 2 or 3 people supporting 4 or 5 for exsample.

Democrats in congress did a great attack job on President Bush on the social security issue.

While I may not agree with all the details that I read once on the Governement of Chile's individual retirement accounts, it is supposed to take care of this problem.

You might want to read more on Chile's foray into individual retirement accounts. It's been an unmitigated disaster for the people. Not so much for the financial companies who've run them, which is what's in store for the US if we privatize Social Security.

By the way, Social Security is currently more than self-supporting. It's taking in more than it needs.

And you'd be willing to live, uncomplainingly, with the consequences of your choices if, say, your investments went bad, or if the companies you invested in went broke through fraud committed by the people in charge of the companies? You'd be willing to live in poverty, homeless and hungry, on the street because your 401K didn't pan out, no fault of your own?

Well too bad--the rest of us aren't willing to let you do that. I guess we're bastands, but we're going to make sure you have Social Security, whether you want it or not.

And here's how I know that--look back to the real demise of George W. Bush's second term, and it wasn't the Iraq War or Hurricane Katrina. Those just finished him off. It was going after Social Security that killed his 2004 momentum, and rightly so.

Oh yea, thank you Nazz, those 25 cents a year will really come in handy when I retire. Most companies that hire employees also ofter 401ks or other retirement package for their employees, and those will hand out a better yield than SS. If not the 401ks, then there are several other private companies that'll help you plan for your retirement (you've seen them on TV) as well as banks and financial institution. The private market will always yield a better result with retirement than SS. All SS does is reconfirm my belief that anything that the public sector does, the private sector can do better.

As for myself, as soon as I can be excluded from paying into SS and start diverting that money into a private account, the better.

Bush actually had a good idea with the privatization of Social Security, but thanks to the Democrats and Liberal smear campaign, they scared a bunch of old people into voting against it, despite the fact that Bush told them that their SS will not be affected, that it was for my generation, for those who know SS won't be there when we retire.

If SS is doing so well Nazz, then how come you need two working people to support one? Then how come in a few years, or decades, it'll take three working people to support one? Face it, it is a broken system and unless it is fixed soon, it will fail, and it will fail worse than the Ford Pinto. When that happens, I'll be more than delightful to point out that we had a chance to fix it, but no one wanted to because of the scare tactics used by the Democrats to discredited a legit plan to fix it.

So, have fun trying to get out of that hole, while I'll be enjoying my golden year which will be brought to you by, privatized retirement funds.

Pride in one's selfishness is either contemptible intellectual laziness or willful cruelty. Which is is with you?

I'm just brutally honest. :)

Bush actually had a good idea with the privatization of Social Security, but thanks to the Democrats and Liberal smear campaign, they scared a bunch of old people into voting against it, despite the fact that Bush told them that their SS will not be affected, that it was for my generation, for those who know SS won't be there when we retire.
See, now you're just making shit up. There was never a vote on Social Security "reform" because no one actually came up with a plan, complete with legislation. And old people certainly didn't vote against it, because they never had an opportunity. The Social Security issue was well dead before the 2006 elections came along.

So when you have something even remotely resembling facts, come back and we'll talk. In the meantime, I suggest you take a closer look at the pessimistic figures the SSA has provided, and also come to grips with what Social Security is--a way to keep you from dying penniless on the street in case your well laid plans are shot to hell by circumstances outside your control.

See, the only way your system works is if nothing goes wrong. If your investments pan out, if your health stays good, if the economy stays reasonably strong, if, if, if, then your retirement might turn out okay without Social Security. Of course, if you get cancer, or if you get hit by a car and can't work, or if the companies you invest in go in the shitter, or if the national economy goes in the shitter, well, your retirement is a tent in the park if you're lucky.

The nice thing about Social Security is that if all that shit doesn't turn out right, you've still got something. It may not be a lot, but you've got something, and it's something that no one can take away from you.

The nice thing about Social Security is that if all that shit doesn't turn out right, you've still got something. It may not be a lot, but you've got something, and it's something that no one can take away from you.

*cough* Yea, so why is Congress dipping into the coffee can again?

I'm just brutally honest. :)

No, you're just selfish, and no matter what you say to the contrary, that is most definitely not a good thing.

*cough* Yea, so why is Congress dipping into the coffee can again?

You know what? Never mind. Go ahead and believe what you will. I hope your investments all work out for you, and I hope you get a job with your BA degree that both fulfills you and pays you well, and I hope you live a life free of worries and entanglements and that it all works out for you in the end. It's a nice thing to wish for.

But it's a stupid thing to count on.

I've already admitted that my desire to not pay into SS, and to see it either die off (which it probably will at some point) or go through a major overhaul, is well, selfish. Yes I am a selfish person who looks out for me espically when it comes to what happens to the taxes that I pay for out of my paycheck. Of course it if was up to me, we'd all be under the Fair Tax right now and our paychecks wouldn't get taxed.

...

You know, for a very long time I was willing to believe that despite the impression you gave when I first met you, you are a kind, gentle person who is just a little misguided when it comes to various parts of life, such as your religious beliefs, which have thankfully been moving closer towards atheism, and your political beliefs, which have not.

Thank you very much for shattering that illusion. I am now placing you on ignore. Have a nice day.

Corporations pay dick, relatively speaking, in taxes, and they're among the biggest cheats (as well as the most rarely prosecuted) in the nation. We could take a significant chunk out of our yearly deficit if we made corporations pay what they actually owe.

Like rich people, RICH corporations pay dick. My corporation is very small and pays every penny it owes, because if we didn't it would destroy us.

However, I agree with your point. If the highest money makers in our economy both individuals and corporations started paying what they owe, the elderly could have golden toilet seats. SS isn't btoken. A tax system that punishes the middle class for being honest is.

*cough* Yea, so why is Congress dipping into the coffee can again?Congress raiding social security is a separate issue than a problem with social security. Social security itself is fine, it's money being taken from it that isn't.

They need to raise the SS retirement age in line with increases in life expectancy, starting with a hike to 75 and then increasing along with the average life expectancy (rounded to the nearest year, of course). We need to realize that people are going to have 20, 30, even more years after age 65, and that's only going to keep going up further and further as time passes. This system will not survive the next 20-30 years in its present form.

Social Security is designed for the world of the 1930's, when people only lived to age 70 or so on average and the population was younger than it is now. If you want to retire at 65, so be it, but it should be on your dime and not the government's.

They need to raise the SS retirement age in line with increases in life expectancy, starting with a hike to 75 and then increasing along with the average life expectancy (rounded to the nearest year, of course). We need to realize that people are going to have 20, 30, even more years after age 65, and that's only going to keep going up further and further as time passes. This system will not survive the next 20-30 years in its present form.

Social Security is designed for the world of the 1930's, when people only lived to age 70 or so on average and the population was younger than it is now. If you want to retire at 65, so be it, but it should be on your dime and not the government's.

:D:D:D:D

They need to raise the SS retirement age in line with increases in life expectancy, starting with a hike to 75 and then increasing along with the average life expectancy (rounded to the nearest year, of course). We need to realize that people are going to have 20, 30, even more years after age 65, and that's only going to keep going up further and further as time passes. This system will not survive the next 20-30 years in its present form.

Social Security is designed for the world of the 1930's, when people only lived to age 70 or so on average and the population was younger than it is now. If you want to retire at 65, so be it, but it should be on your dime and not the government's.

Or we could just start enforcing tax law and we wouldn't have to take money away from people who are doing nothing, but instead take money away from people who are criminally hiding their earnings from the government.

Corporations pay dick, relatively speaking, in taxes

Absolutely false. They pay the most, relatively speaking.

and they're among the biggest cheats (as well as the most rarely prosecuted)

Yeah? Prove these statements.

Ok, but tell me, are you really content with the fact that people are having to pay into two retirement fund, and they'll only see a return on one of them? Why would anyone would pay that much money but only see half of their investment returned? It's insane and a waste of money. If you give the people the option to either pay into both or one, 99% of them will probably pay into the one that gives them the return.

Where, in the name of all that's reasonable, are you pulling this shit? I know lots of people on SS, and nobody's getting "half" of what they paid in. Are you just a talking points parrot and really that gullible?

Oh yea, thank you Nazz, those 25 cents a year will really come in handy when I retire. Most companies that hire employees also ofter 401ks or other retirement package for their employees, and those will hand out a better yield than SS. If not the 401ks, then there are several other private companies that'll help you plan for your retirement (you've seen them on TV) as well as banks and financial institution. The private market will always yield a better result with retirement than SS. All SS does is reconfirm my belief that anything that the public sector does, the private sector can do better.


Bolded 1: What the fuck are you TALKING about?! You've not posted one source that backs this ludicrous claim up, not one! Please shut your piehole or produce something legitimate.

Bolded 2: Yeah, the private mercenaries in Iraq are doing a bang-up job. And how are those private freeways you drive on? Private transit workin' out for you, too? Look, you're clearly anti-government, and that's fine, but the free market is not the solution for every problem. Especially since it's success is predicated on the premise that the economy MUST KEEP GROWING on a finite planet in a finite world. I'll take security over risk when it comes to my money, thanks.

Or we could just start enforcing tax law and we wouldn't have to take money away from people who are doing nothing, but instead take money away from people who are criminally hiding their earnings from the government.

Oh, absolutely; tax fraud at all income levels and special-interest deductions cost us billions that could be used to fund these programs. However, I seriously doubt even that would be enough to cover the shortfall given how much of our budget relies on SS revenue surpluses these days. This problem is so deeply rooted in all aspects of the government that it would require a bigger effort than anything we've ever done before to solve...I don't think we can do it, personally.

Absolutely false. They pay the most, relatively speaking.



Yeah? Prove these statements.

You mean besides the number of corporations who more their HQs offshore to avoid paying US taxes? :rolleyes:

Absolutely false. They pay the most, relatively speaking.



Yeah? Prove these statements.

As Intagelon pointed out one has to ignore the obvious actions of these companies in order to actually buy what you're saying. The role of the leaders of these companies is to keep profits as high as possible. That REQUIRES them to avoid taxes in every way possible. It's their job. The job of the US government is to stop them.

Meanwhile, it's not up for debate who can afford to hire experts in tax law in order to find holes and who cannot. Small companies and people with low income will always be more subject to a standard tax than large corporations and people with high income as long as tax law is as complicated as it is today.

And who made it complicated? People with high incomes being funded by large corporations. Coincidence?

As Intagelon pointed out one has to ignore the obvious actions of these companies in order to actually buy what you're saying. The role of the leaders of these companies is to keep profits as high as possible. That REQUIRES them to avoid taxes in every way possible. It's their job. The job of the US government is to stop them.

Meanwhile, it's not up for debate who can afford to hire experts in tax law in order to find holes and who cannot. Small companies and people with low income will always be more subject to a standard tax than large corporations and people with high income as long as tax law is as complicated as it is today.

And who made it complicated? People with high incomes being funded by large corporations. Coincidence?

there is no such thing as a tax loophole, either you are breaking the law or you are not.

The IRS could focus more on enforcement if low income workers weren't so busy abusing things like the EIC and the Schedule C. The amount of money the government loses through schemes like that alone is shocking.

As Intagelon pointed out one has to ignore the obvious actions of these companies in order to actually buy what you're saying.

Which companies, again? There are five million in the US alone.


And who made it complicated? People with high incomes being funded by large corporations. Coincidence?

What are you ON about? The "progressive" tax system was made, and made complicated, by government. Representatives and voters. People like you, screaming that the ebil corporations and high income earners aren't being ass-raped quite enough by the government.

What are you ON about? The "progressive" tax system was made, and made complicated, by government. Representatives and voters. People like you, screaming that the ebil corporations and high income earners aren't being ass-raped quite enough by the government.

The irony of which being that this system actually made it easier for the unscrupulous to get away with the things people complained about in the first place.

there is no such thing as a tax loophole, either you are breaking the law or you are not.

The IRS could focus more on enforcement if low income workers weren't so busy abusing things like the EIC and the Schedule C. The amount of money the government loses through schemes like that alone is shocking.

Seriously, Smunk, I've heard some nonsense in my day, but that's absurd. Do you know how many low income workers would have to not pay ALL of their taxes in order to make up for what I can "legally" avoid paying by hiring the right CPA. The amount I can write off is nearly equal to the full income of several low income workers. I have friends that are writing off 100K. Think about that number. It takes 20 workers who owe about 5K to refuse to pay all of it in order to make up for that one person.

Some of my friends pay almost no taxes because nearly everything they spend somehow is a business expenditure.

And I don't care if it's technically legal or at least close enough that it doesn't get prosecuted. They are getting out of paying what they rightfully. No way low income workers are going to make up for that. It's mathematically impossible, which is why the tax burden percetagewise falls on the middle class.

Which companies, again? There are five million in the US alone.

And of that number how many of them have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits?


What are you ON about? The "progressive" tax system was made, and made complicated, by government. Representatives and voters. People like you, screaming that the ebil corporations and high income earners aren't being ass-raped quite enough by the government.

We don't make laws. We have a system that requires you to be rich in order to become a respresentative and requires you to have money in order to lobby those representatives. The entire system is made to represent people like me who actually can afford a voice.

Seriously, Smunk, I've heard some nonsense in my day, but that's absurd. Do you know how many low income workers would have to not pay ALL of their taxes in order to make up for what I can "legally" avoid paying by hiring the right CPA. The amount I can write off is nearly equal to the full income of several low income workers. I have friends that are writing off 100K. Think about that number. It takes 20 workers who owe about 5K to refuse to pay all of it in order to make up for that one person.

Some of my friends pay almost no taxes because nearly everything they spend somehow is a business expenditure.

And I don't care if it's technically legal or at least close enough that it doesn't get prosecuted. They are getting out of paying what they rightfully. No way low income workers are going to make up for that. It's mathematically impossible, which is why the tax burden percetagewise falls on the middle class.

Then your friends are breaking the law, and as a good concerned citizen it's your job to report them.

Then your friends are breaking the law, and as a good concerned citizen it's your job to report them.

No, technically, they aren't. They are reporting this adventures and they are skirting the law in order to make it legal enough that no one cares. It's not a secret what they're doing. They're telling the government they're doing it. And, quite literally, nearly everyone is. Mostly because like you they claim there are no loopholes. It's either legal or it isn't. How unscrupolous it is doesn't matter. Because legal is legal, no?

The system is designed to harm the people who cannot afford to game it. They set it up so the expense of becoming a representative keeps those same people out and quiets their voice by making representatives reliant on contributions that are not from and cannot be from people who can't afford to contribute. The entire system favors people like me over people like you. It's on purpose. And every time it appears that it's going to change the make laws to prevent it like the third-party reforms to keep third parties out of debates and deny them federal funding.

And of that number how many of them have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits?

All of them. Same with all of any other types of businesses.

But, and I know you want to say that lawbreaking is mandated by this fact, but it just doesn't fly with me.

All of them. Same with all of any other types of businesses.

But, and I know you want to say that lawbreaking is mandated by this fact, but it just doesn't fly with me.

If they can find a way to avoid US taxes without destroying the corporation or landing its management in jail, it has an obligation to do so. And they do.

Smunkee, think about this way. Yes, you get a vote, but could you afford to run for president? Nope. Could you afford to run for president if you and everyone you know contributed? Probably not. Not unless you know some really rich people. What if we took the poorest 10% of the country and got them to support you? Could you afford to run then? Nope. The system requires you to get popular support before you can afford popular support, to get "handouts" from corporations and rich people. They've ensured that the rich are a requirement for the process. Do you think it's coincidence that in that system, that our system of tax laws, hell, our whole system of laws, favors them?

there is no such thing as a tax loophole, either you are breaking the law or you are not.

The IRS could focus more on enforcement if low income workers weren't so busy abusing things like the EIC and the Schedule C. The amount of money the government loses through schemes like that alone is shocking.

Oh spare the fuck out of me Smunk. The amount of fraud that goes on at that level is a fucking pittance compared to the billions that corporations fail to pay every year--and I'm not talking about loopholes here. The GAO said a couple of years ago that if the IRS cracked down on corporate tax cheats, they could take in nearly a hundred billion extra dollars a year in tax revenues, conservatively speaking. What they lose in EIC cheats is a fucking pittance compared to that, and even though EIC cheating is wrong, that's money that still finds its way back into the economy immediately, which you can't say about corporate cheating.

No, technically, they aren't. They are reporting this adventures and they are skirting the law in order to make it legal enough that no one cares. It's not a secret what they're doing. They're telling the government they're doing it. And, quite literally, nearly everyone is. Mostly because like you they claim there are no loopholes. It's either legal or it isn't. How unscrupolous it is doesn't matter. Because legal is legal, no?

no, they aren't skirting the law, they are breaking it.

To deduct a business expense it must be ordinary and necessary and primarily for the business. Deducting a dinner because you "mention the business" or because "everyone is a potential client" is illegal. Deducting a vacation because you "did some work" or "had a business dinner" is illegal.

There is no grey area in the tax code, there are things that are legal that you may not like, like an LLC being able to deduct half of their SE tax, but the tax code is very clearly outlined, and your friends who think they are "skirting the law" are in fact committing tax fraud.

Smunkee, think about this way. Yes, you get a vote, but could you afford to run for president? Nope. Could you afford to run for president if you and everyone you know contributed? Probably not. Not unless you know some really rich people. What if we took the poorest 10% of the country and got them to support you? Could you afford to run then? Nope. The system requires you to get popular support before you can afford popular support, to get "handouts" from corporations and rich people. They've ensured that the rich are a requirement for the process. Do you think it's coincidence that in that system, that our system of tax laws, hell, our whole system of laws, favors them?

As someone who does taxes for a living I don't really see that the tax code "favors" them. The top 2% pay something like 60% of all the revenue the government receives, some of you think they should pay more. I am not one of those people. Corporations for the most part pay more in taxes than any other type of business structure per percentage of money earned. Do some of them cheat? sure. They should be prosecuted for that, but in my mind so should everyone who commits tax fraud.

To deduct a business expense it must be ordinary and necessary and primarily for the business. Deducting a dinner because you "mention the business" or because "everyone is a potential client" is illegal. Deducting a vacation because you "did some work" or "had a business dinner" is illegal.

There is no grey area in the tax code,

Yes, there is. As long as nothing is explicitly included or excluded, almost anything can be construed to meet ambiguous definitions of things like "business expenses." To pretend there is no grey area is just fooling yourself.

As someone who does taxes for a living I don't really see that the tax code "favors" them. The top 2% pay something like 60% of all the revenue the government receives, some of you think they should pay more.
Last I checked, the top 2% were making well over 60% of all the money. So yes, they should be paying more.

Yes, there is. As long as nothing is explicitly included or excluded, almost anything can be construed to meet ambiguous definitions of things like "business expenses." To pretend there is no grey area is just fooling yourself.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf

I gave you the simplified version, there is the "for idiots" book, if you get through it and feel the same, I will link to the actual tax code. Good luck understanding it without my help though.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf

I gave you the simplified version, there is the "for idiots" book, if you get through it and feel the same, I will link to the actual tax code. Good luck understanding it without my help though.
Your elitist crap is as amusing as Myrmidonisia's and DK's. By which I mean, not at all. You can sit there and live in your straight-edge fantasy world if you want, but I don't need to. I know for a fact that if it isn't explicitly defined, it is open to some interpretation, relative to how much you pay your lawyers and tax people.

Taking a potential customer to dinner where you "talk business" can easily be construed such that if falls under the "ordinary and necessary" clause. If I can do it, some one who is well-versed in this kind of crap can do it.

Your elitist crap is as amusing as Myrmidonisia's and DK's. By which I mean, not at all. You can sit there and live in your straight-edge fantasy world if you want, but I don't need to. I know for a fact that if it isn't explicitly defined, it is open to some interpretation, relative to how much you pay your lawyers and tax people.
I think you will find that if/when you get audited the IRS isn't as fond of "interpretation" as you would like to believe.

Taking a potential customer to dinner where you "talk business" can easily be construed such that if falls under the "ordinary and necessary" clause. If I can do it, some one who is well-versed in this kind of crap can do it.
Taking your mom to dinner and having a conversation like "how's business?" and you reply "good" is not a business expense no matter how well you think you can "interpret" the law. While you may have been able to deduct it in the past and get away with it, it's not legal. If you get audited it will be disallowed and you may be charged with fraud. Saying that because people do something and don't get caught makes it legal is like saying that because I steal packs of gum every time I go to the 7-11 and I haven't been caught yet that means stealing is legal and 7-11 lets me do it because they love me.

*Smunk does not steal anything, she doesn't even like gum.

That's not what I said, thanks though.

That's not what I said, thanks though.

there is legal and illegal, there isn't room for interpretation.

there is legal and illegal, there isn't room for interpretation.
But there is room for interpretation before "legal or illegal" is brought up.

Ponzi schemes are always a wonderful idea!
It doesn't matter that we're selling our children down the river, so long as I get my milktoast in my doddering old age.

I would have no issue with SS being deducted from my paychecks if it were enough for the people who depend on it to live on. For the average working class citizen in the United States, SS, Medicaid, Medicare, ect., is simply not enough to live on. Although, as with most issues, its not a matter of the amount being taxed but how it is being spent. The amount recieved in retirement for a working class citizen can be as low as 700 dollars. :eek:
often these are the same people who have no choice but to enter low income retirement homes. The system needs to change dramatically. As it is right now it is barely humane for the most vulenerable citizens.

I am 57 yrs old. When I was 27 yrs old all I heard about was how the Social Security System was broke and wouldn't make it to the end of the decade; and that the next big depression was just around the corner; and California was going to fall into the ocean; and the Russians were coming; and we were going to have an atomic war that would wipe us all out.
"The Beat goes on and on."

Enjoy!

Ok here is my two cents on the whole topic of SS. I think it has to go. In its place, we need better IRAs. I think people of all ages should be able to contribute up to 1/4 of their annual earned income into an IRA and this should be tax deductible. I also think that the money that is pulled out (earliest opportunity to do so should be at 59.5 years old) should be tax free too. Then, everybody would have super IRAs and there would be no need for SS. If people are still too dumb to fund this "super ira" well then the devil can have 'em.

The government should give these awesome tax incentives but should not do the whole SS thing. Anybody else like the idea of a Super IRA? I know I would love it if we had this option.

Oh and if employers want to contribute up to a certain match this would be ok up to a certain dollar amount or percentage of the employee's income.

Asking why if social security works do people invest in their own private retirement funds is like asking why if the mattress holds your money just fine, why do people put money in banks.

Also where in the world did this rediculous notion come from that social security was paying into your OWN retirement fund? If that were the case, the very first social security payments of any real validity wouldn't have come until sometime in the 60s as the first payers into it started withdrawing from their own accounts.

Likewise

Social Security was first setup to help those who had no retirement of any kind because they either didn't work (often women) or worked with no retirement. Social Security has grown into many other areas such as surviors benefits etc that IRA's will not be able to fund.

Yeah, don't forget that SS also pays disability benefits.

My girlfriend's brother was born with a mild form of cerebral palsy. While he is relatively healthy and physically able, he needs a lot of help... and holding down a regular, steady job would be iffy for him, except perhaps for the most mundane and mindless jobs like pushing shopping carts around a parking lot.

But he doesn't need to. Since the day he turned 18 he has received a small subsidy through Social Security, which defrays the cost of his family's keeping him healthy and happy.

Would I change this? Well, only in one respect. As SS works today, if he were to obtain employment he would immediately lose his benefits... and it would be difficult to get them back, even if he subsequently lost his job (and especially if he quit).

Thus, he has to choose between taking a risk and putting himself out there to be productive, to engage with people in the workplace, to do something interesting with his life... and there are inherent values to these things, as long as you're not doing the drudge work. But, could he keep up with a real job? I don't know. I think he could.

But I also know that, from his perspective (and that of his family's) it's not worth the risk: if he puts himself out there and falters, he'll lose his SS income, possibly permanently.

Why should this be so? SS income is minimal enough that we should not begrudge him the extra income if he happens to have a job, especially since he's not likely in any case to leap to the forefront of the money-making world. At the very least, it should be much easier for him to experiment in life and come back to SS if he needs it.

Who cares about Social Security?

It's Medicare that's in trouble.

Medicare will start dipping into its "trust fund" by the end of this decade!

And mind you, these trust funds DON'T EXIST.

The only thing in the trust funds is a stack of IOUs from Congress.

And how does Congress pay it back? By collecting taxes of course!

There is no trust fund. The minute that these programs start dipping into the red, deficits will explode.

These entitlement programs are going to bankrupt this nation unless we start cutting back on something.

Who cares about Social Security?

It's Medicare that's in trouble.

Medicare will start dipping into its "trust fund" by the end of this decade!

And mind you, these trust funds DON'T EXIST.

The only thing in the trust funds is a stack of IOUs from Congress.

And how does Congress pay it back? By collecting taxes of course!

There is no trust fund. The minute that these programs start dipping into the red, deficits will explode.

These entitlement programs are going to bankrupt this nation unless we start cutting back on something.
I agree Medicare is in trouble. We need to fix it.

no, they aren't skirting the law, they are breaking it.

To deduct a business expense it must be ordinary and necessary and primarily for the business. Deducting a dinner because you "mention the business" or because "everyone is a potential client" is illegal. Deducting a vacation because you "did some work" or "had a business dinner" is illegal.

There is no grey area in the tax code, there are things that are legal that you may not like, like an LLC being able to deduct half of their SE tax, but the tax code is very clearly outlined, and your friends who think they are "skirting the law" are in fact committing tax fraud.

You're quite wrong. THey are pretty much constantly working. That's a fact. That doesn't mean they should live or free no matter how you slice it. Claim what you want, but they are breaking no laws. You'd be hard-pressed to show to any legal agency that they are.

And as has already been pointed out, to claim there is no grey area in tax law is ludicrous. It's practically all grey area. If there were no grey area, CPAs wouldn't get paid so much. We could all just punch the numbers in and we'd always get the same return. However, in reality, you hire ten different accountants, you'll pay ten different amounts in taxes.

As someone who does taxes for a living I don't really see that the tax code "favors" them. The top 2% pay something like 60% of all the revenue the government receives, some of you think they should pay more. I am not one of those people. Corporations for the most part pay more in taxes than any other type of business structure per percentage of money earned. Do some of them cheat? sure. They should be prosecuted for that, but in my mind so should everyone who commits tax fraud.

The top 2% has greater than 60% of the wealth. Worse they do way more than 60% of the business which how taxes are collected. The taxes they pay are disproportionate to their wealth, our wealth, particularly when you consider the fact that the lowest third of families can't afford to pay taxes.

there is legal and illegal, there isn't room for interpretation.

Amusing. We pay a few tens of thousands of people under the belief that there is much room for interpretation. I'm glad that you're so willing to flip our entire system of law on its head, but there is virtually no support for the idea that there is no grey area in law, even tax law.

I think you will find that if/when you get audited the IRS isn't as fond of "interpretation" as you would like to believe.


Taking your mom to dinner and having a conversation like "how's business?" and you reply "good" is not a business expense no matter how well you think you can "interpret" the law. While you may have been able to deduct it in the past and get away with it, it's not legal. If you get audited it will be disallowed and you may be charged with fraud. Saying that because people do something and don't get caught makes it legal is like saying that because I steal packs of gum every time I go to the 7-11 and I haven't been caught yet that means stealing is legal and 7-11 lets me do it because they love me.

*Smunk does not steal anything, she doesn't even like gum.

Not "don't get caught". That's what you aren't understanding. They specifically go out of their way to make it legal. They exploit the problems in tax law. It's not fruadulent, it's simply unethical. There's an obvious difference.

The idea that tax code is a clear cut black and white either legal or illegal is....amusing.

The fact is there are mountains of things in the tax code that are wildly up to interpretation. For example, in your own post smunk, what is "in the ordinary course of business?" What if this is the kind of business, say...sales, where someone is taken out to dinner, and a lot of casual conversation before getting down to business by desert?

What if no business is discussed but it is building relationships with clients?

What if it's merely POTENTIAL clients?

The idea that tax code is a clear cut black and white either legal or illegal is....amusing.

The fact is there are mountains of things in the tax code that are wildly up to interpretation. For example, in your own post smunk, what is "in the ordinary course of business?" What if this is the kind of business, say...sales, where someone is taken out to dinner, and a lot of casual conversation before getting down to business by desert?

What if no business is discussed but it is building relationships with clients?

What if it's merely POTENTIAL clients?

when it comes down to an audit, there is a very clear line and your auditor will spell it out for you. I have been on enough audits to see that. Hey, though, I am sure all of you regularly deal with the IRS in the course of business right?

when it comes down to an audit, there is a very clear line and your auditor will spell it out for you. I have been on enough audits to see that. Hey, though, I am sure all of you regularly deal with the IRS in the course of business right?

Oh, what a great "you won't understand the answer" avoidance of the point. Surely you can define specifically what qualifies as business, what qualifies as a client, what qualifies as a potential employee, etc.

Surely you can, no? It's black and white. No grey area.

I go to dinner with my business partner and someone we would like to invest in our company. Can I write it off? Always? Sometimes? When can I and when can I not? Why?

The reason tax law requires experts, the reason it's so difficult to explain, the reason there are people who study this forever and still disagree on it is because there are tons of grey areas. So either you're not the expert you claim to be or you're being deliberately obtuse. Because I assure you if you've been in all these audits you recognize that every auditor doesn't agreee all the time like little automatons. Much like judges don't always agree, even though you're claiming illegal and legal have no grey area as well.

Social Security was first setup to help those who had no retirement of any kind because they either didn't work (often women) or worked with no retirement. Social Security has grown into many other areas such as surviors benefits etc that IRA's will not be able to fund.

Right. That's why agricultural workers, domestic servants, and other low-income workers were *excluded* from the original Social Security system. Makes sense to me. :p Big Government cares about the little guy, right? :p

when it comes down to an audit, there is a very clear line and your auditor will spell it out for you.

And nobody EVER hires tax lawyers to appeal the auditor's decision right? And they NEVER win, right? The fact is there are lawyers out there who make VERY lucritive careers doing nothing but appealing tax audits, and winning.

I know several.

I have been on enough audits to see that. Hey, though, I am sure all of you regularly deal with the IRS in the course of business right?

I deal with the MA department of revenue enough to be asked to sit in as a fill in for the appeallate tax board...

I would have no issue with SS being deducted from my paychecks if it were enough for the people who depend on it to live on. For the average working class citizen in the United States, SS, Medicaid, Medicare, ect., is simply not enough to live on. Although, as with most issues, its not a matter of the amount being taxed but how it is being spent. The amount recieved in retirement for a working class citizen can be as low as 700 dollars. :eek:
often these are the same people who have no choice but to enter low income retirement homes. The system needs to change dramatically. As it is right now it is barely humane for the most vulenerable citizens.

Yes. Also there is no good reason why the top 10 percentiles of income earners need to receive Social Security benefits, they should be well off enough to save for their own retirement.

Oh, what a great "you won't understand the answer" avoidance of the point. Surely you can define specifically what qualifies as business, what qualifies as a client, what qualifies as a potential employee, etc.

Surely you can, no? It's black and white. No grey area.

I go to dinner with my business partner and someone we would like to invest in our company. Can I write it off? Always? Sometimes? When can I and when can I not? Why?

The reason tax law requires experts, the reason it's so difficult to explain, the reason there are people who study this forever and still disagree on it is because there are tons of grey areas. So either you're not the expert you claim to be or you're being deliberately obtuse. Because I assure you if you've been in all these audits you recognize that every auditor doesn't agreee all the time like little automatons. Much like judges don't always agree, even though you're claiming illegal and legal have no grey area as well.
well, I guess you are right.

*deducts her family dinner since her kids are potential clients*

well, I guess you are right.

*deducts her family dinner since her kids are potential clients*

Yes, because that's what I said. I said that because of the way they do business they are able to write off things they really shouldn't be able to.

There is a far cry between "no grey area" and "deducting her family dinner". I'll assume that the fact that you have to exaggerate in order to make an argument to be an admission of the validity of the argument we're making.

Assuming you can actually make the argument you claimed, what qualifies as a potentional client? Can we write off a dinner with my business partner and a potential investor? When can we do it and when can we not?

It's a specific example. I'm not talking about the family dinner. I've known you for some time, I'm quite sure you're capable of addressing the point rather than creating a strawman.

Yes, because that's what I said. I said that because of the way they do business they are able to write off things they really shouldn't be able to.

There is a far cry between "no grey area" and "deducting her family dinner". I'll assume that the fact that you have to exaggerate in order to make an argument to be an admission of the validity of the argument we're making.

Assuming you can actually make the argument you claimed, what qualifies as a potentional client? Can we write off a dinner with my business partner and a potential investor? When can we do it and when can we not?

It's a specific example. I'm not talking about the family dinner. I've known you for some time, I'm quite sure you're capable of addressing the point rather than creating a strawman.
Meals and refreshments incidental to a business meeting that involves substantive business discussions and include primarily only employees may be deducted if, for reasons of continuity, the meeting extends through a traditional meal time period.

For all other business related meals, there must be a documented business purpose (must meet IRS ordinary and necessary criteria) and need for business to extend into a traditional meal time period. The cost of the meal must be reasonable, not lavish or extravagant.

Meals and refreshments incidental to a business meeting that involves substantive business discussions and include primarily only employees may be deducted if, for reasons of continuity, the meeting extends through a traditional meal time period.

Thank you, now define "substantive".

And when you're done with that, define "primarily"

For all other business related meals, there must be a documented business purpose (must meet IRS ordinary and necessary criteria) and need for business to extend into a traditional meal time period. The cost of the meal must be reasonable, not lavish or extravagant.

Now please give me the maximum price of the meal, per person, so that it won't be considered "lavish" or "extravagant".

Because all of those sound a hell of a lot like opinion calls to me.

Meals and refreshments incidental to a business meeting that involves substantive business discussions and include primarily only employees may be deducted if, for reasons of continuity, the meeting extends through a traditional meal time period.

For all other business related meals, there must be a documented business purpose (must meet IRS ordinary and necessary criteria) and need for business to extend into a traditional meal time period. The cost of the meal must be reasonable, not lavish or extravagant.

Define the following -

Ordinary and necessary
Substantive
acceptable reasons for extending into the traditional meal time period.
Lavish
Extravagant

I expect to see numbers since descriptive terms are open to interpretation. Meanwhile, I think you'll find you're quite wrong that it requires that it be primarily only employees. It's quite frequent for us to provide lunch for a large group of potential clients and write it off and I assure it's entirely legal. Those times are even ethical.

Thank you, now define "substantive".

And when you're done with that, define "primarily"



Now please give me the maximum price of the meal, per person, so that it won't be considered "lavish" or "extravagant".

Because all of those sound a hell of a lot like opinion calls to me.

Ah, the beauty of abstract expressions in legal arguments--as a poet, I can tell you I get great joy out of watching this sort of thing go down.

Define the following -

Ordinary and necessary
Substantive
acceptable reasons for extending into the traditional meal time period.
Lavish
Extravagant

I expect to see numbers since descriptive terms are open to interpretation. Meanwhile, I think you'll find you're quite wrong that it requires that it be primarily only employees. It's quite frequent for us to provide lunch for a large group of potential clients and write it off and I assure it's entirely legal. Those times are even ethical.

Okay, let me backtrack and say firstly that I am under a lot of stress tonight and secondly I was working from a poor assumption.

Meaning, yes, you can fiddle with those definitions all you want and hope to get away with it, and for the most part you will, but when you get audited the IRS is not going to come down on the most liberal of definitions, so don't deduct things unless you are reasonably sure that they are actual business expenses in the spirit of the definition given by the IRS.

but when you get audited the IRS is not going to come down on the most liberal of definitions, so don't deduct things unless you are reasonably sure that they are actual business expenses in the spirit of the definition given by the IRS.

I think on this we can agree. It is true that the IRS takes what it can, when it can, and generally they don't like giving deductions unless it's pretty clear they have ot.

But people can, and have, successfully appealed an auditor's decision. MA has a specific appelate tax board that deals with exactly those issues.

Ah, the beauty of abstract expressions in legal arguments--as a poet, I can tell you I get great joy out of watching this sort of thing go down.

as a transactional lawyer, I can tell you that abstract expressions in legal arguments just bought me a new TV.

I think on this we can agree. It is true that the IRS takes what it can, when it can, and generally they don't like giving deductions unless it's pretty clear they have ot.

But people can, and have, successfully appealed an auditor's decision. MA has a specific appelate tax board that deals with exactly those issues.

I am more on the trying not to get to the appealing an audit decision side of it as an enrolled agent.

as a transactional lawyer, I can tell you that abstract expressions in legal arguments just bought me a new TV.

Whereas using clear, concise imagery, well, got me my job. No new television, but a college English instructor can't expect to make what a lawyer will, now can he? ;)

Whereas using clear, concise imagery, well, got me my job. No new television, but a college English instructor can't expect to make what a lawyer will, now can he? ;)

Depends on the lawyer and the instructor, really.

Okay, let me backtrack and say firstly that I am under a lot of stress tonight and secondly I was working from a poor assumption.

Meaning, yes, you can fiddle with those definitions all you want and hope to get away with it, and for the most part you will, but when you get audited the IRS is not going to come down on the most liberal of definitions, so don't deduct things unless you are reasonably sure that they are actual business expenses in the spirit of the definition given by the IRS.

It probably isn't going to be the most liberal definition, but what they are doing isn't technically illegal. It's just unethical.

It's the fault of those that made the code. And it's not accidental. They made it relatively easy to exploit the law. That's a bad thing.

Depends on the lawyer and the instructor, really.

You'd have to be a pretty crappy lawyer to make what I do, I think, though I do okay as English instructors go, especially when you factor in the state bennies. :p

They need to raise the SS retirement age in line with increases in life expectancy, starting with a hike to 75 and then increasing along with the average life expectancy (rounded to the nearest year, of course). We need to realize that people are going to have 20, 30, even more years after age 65, and that's only going to keep going up further and further as time passes. This system will not survive the next 20-30 years in its present form.

Social Security is designed for the world of the 1930's, when people only lived to age 70 or so on average and the population was younger than it is now. If you want to retire at 65, so be it, but it should be on your dime and not the government's.

I would'nt worry too much about life expectancy, considering how we live in a society of the young and morbidly obese. look around and take a count of how many 300 pound 70 year olds are out there. So for all you folks that think you are just perfect the way you are....eat up, cause I'd like to get social security, and habits like those will make sure there will be at least a little something for those of us that eat to live not live to eat. ;)

My worry is what Peak Oil will do to our economy and thus to programs like Social Security and Medicare. Vetalia, PsychoticDan...any ideas?

My worry is what Peak Oil will do to our economy and thus to programs like Social Security and Medicare. Vetalia, PsychoticDan...any ideas?

Expropriation, without compensation.

(must meet IRS ordinary and necessary criteria)
As I have said multiple times before, according to the "idiot's guide" the "ordinary and necessary" clause is absurdly vague.

We need safety nets that actually work. If Social Security is working, then why are so many people investing in their own retirement fund? Hell my parents are nearing retirement age themselves, and they know that they won't see a dime of it, thats why they have their own nest egg, the only generation to actually get a return on their investment into SS when they retire was my grandparent's generation.

Social Security is a broken down system, and either needs to be fixed so that those who invest in it actually get out what they put in after 40 years of working, or it needs to be put to rest and let people take the money that would've been invested in SS, take that money and put it in their own retirement fund.

Social Security is supposed to supplement you to get the basics of food, shelter and medical care.

If you want to live more comfortably than that, then you CHOOSE to invest like the rest of us, and not whine.

Expropriation, without compensation.

Are you certain? Could you please clarify and explain in more detail?

So today I was talking with my friends and my friends were talking about Medicare, and Medicaid, and the subject of Social Security was brought up. I made the observation that by the time we retire (most of us are in our early twenties) Social Security will not be there for us, so why should we have to pay into a system that we're not going to see a dime of? They all agree. I find it pretty insulting that not only do I have to pay into my 401k (which I don't mind) and into Social Security at the same time, and yet I'll only see half of my investment returned to me. Sooner or later, the government is going to have to do something about Social Security, I'm in favor of starting to dismantle it and start moving towards private Social Security, like 401ks and other investment.

I've already started to do research about how other people were able to take the government to court, and actually get out of paying for Social Security. Is it selfish, yes, but I'm not going to pay into a system that not going to give me anything in return. I would rather take the money that I would've paid into social security, and put it into my 401k. I suggest to my friends that they do the same thing. If enough people start winning cases to withdraw their contribution to Social Security and keeping it for their own retirement fund, then maybe some change will come about. But knowing our government, they'd just let Social Security fail, which it probably should in the long term.

I sort of agree with you, but I'm a n00b on this subject. At least you got to the point with the thread title.

I sort of agree with you, but I'm a n00b on this subject. At least you got to the point with the thread title.

You might want to read the whole thread before buying what Wilgrove says, mate.

You might want to read the whole thread before buying what Wilgrove says, mate.

True.

Ok - I feel a little clarification is required here for those who clearly don't understand how the social security system was set up or how it works.

1. First and foremost, it is completely and utterly wrong to think of your SS contributions as "investments". They are not, and never were. SS is funded via the payroll tax (and 12% is quite a reasonable rate, btw - payroll is taxed about double that in the UK). To understand why it's not an investment, you have to go back to when the system was set up. Ok, so a little history here: When the SS payroll tax was first instituted, retirees started getting benefits AT THE SAME TIME. Meaning that SS was set up to be a "pay-as-you-go" system. Payments collected today are used the same day to pay benefits to retirees. This is how it has always worked to date. It is not, repeat not, an investment.

2. It gets a bit more complicated than that, because of the impending "demographic crisis". This is a result of the increasing ratio of retirees to working people. Right now, there are about 3.4 working people for every retiree. By 2030, there will be only 2 working people for every retiree. So obviously, the SS system left to it's own devices would get into trouble.

3. Hence the SS trust fund - and one of the few things you can honestly thank Ronald Reagan for. He had the foresight in the 1980's that because of the impending demographic surge, social security was going to go broke. Hence he increased the payroll tax by 2%, and used the extra revenue to acquire a trust fund for the social security system, in an attempt to put off the financial day of reckoning or maybe avoid it altogether. If it wasn't for the trust fund, the system would go broke in another five years or so. Of course, the one mistake Reagan made was not securing the trust fund against being raided by future administrations. There is therefore a case for a modicum of reform here - that being to secure the trust fund and prevent anyone other than SS from dipping into it.

4. This brings us onto the biggest source of contention between the Social Security system and the Bush Administration. The trust fund is a backup investment designed to supplement social security when benefit obligations start to outstrip payroll tax receipts. The vast majority of it is invested in US government bonds. Now, according to Bush, because SS is a government agency, it's investments "don't exist", or "aren't real". Ok then. So are government bonds held by individuals or private banks "not real"? I doubt it. How about this for a plan: let's launder the trust fund by putting it in private investment banks who will then buy government bonds. Will that make the assets real?
More to the point - any money that SS puts in government bonds is money the government would otherwise have to borrow from other sources. So the trust fund has made a definite contribution to government cash flow. Doesn't that make it a real asset?

Anyway, it's not likely that Bush really thinks the assets aren't real, because he's busily dipping into the SS trust fund to cover the gaping holes in his budget and the ever-growing federal deficit. I might also point out that there is a section of the republican party that strongly opposes the very existence of systems like Social Security - and would therefore like nothing more than to destroy it. So by scaring the public with spurious claims (like claiming the trust fund "doesn't exist") and making people believe that social security won't be there for them when they retire, they are slowly turning the tide of public opinion against the system.

Wake up, FFS. Don't let the system get destroyed. Don't let them raid the trust fund. Stop thinking of your payments as "investments" - they're not. Social security will be fine just as long as we support it properly and stop trying to fuck it up.

The vast majority of it is invested in US government bonds. Now, according to Bush, because SS is a government agency, it's investments "don't exist", or "aren't real". Ok then. So are government bonds held by individuals or private banks "not real"? I doubt it. How about this for a plan: let's launder the trust fund by putting it in private investment banks who will then buy government bonds. Will that make the assets real?
More to the point - any money that SS puts in government bonds is money the government would otherwise have to borrow from other sources. So the trust fund has made a definite contribution to government cash flow. Doesn't that make it a real asset?

The point about the assets not being real is that the money owed by the government to the government. If the shit hits the fan and I am suddenly broke, I cant just pay myself some money to make it all better.

Someone else owning government bonds can consider that a real asset because another entity owes them money, which they can realistically collect upon. A government agency owning bonds is just an accounting trick to shift money from one budget to another - no actual value is created there. Writing a check to myself to be put into my savings account does not make me any wealthier.

Right. That's why agricultural workers, domestic servants, and other low-income workers were *excluded* from the original Social Security system. Makes sense to me. :p Big Government cares about the little guy, right? :p

I suspect they were excluded because the lobbist were able to exclude them.
And it was probably a case of those who wanted the law passed took what they could get. But that is how the system works most of the time.

The point about the assets not being real is that the money owed by the government to the government. If the shit hits the fan and I am suddenly broke, I cant just pay myself some money to make it all better.

Someone else owning government bonds can consider that a real asset because another entity owes them money, which they can realistically collect upon. A government agency owning bonds is just an accounting trick to shift money from one budget to another - no actual value is created there. Writing a check to myself to be put into my savings account does not make me any wealthier.

I do get that point. The logic there is sound, no question about it. But lets say we accept the argument that the social security trust fund isn't real because it's all one government and therefore we can consider it all one budget in reality (if not on paper).
But if it is all one budget, then payroll tax receipts should be considered to be part of general revenue, and social security benefits are therefore part of general spending. In which case, who cares if at some point in the future (you can quibble about exactly when, but it WILL happen) the benefit payments start to exceed payroll tax receipts? If it's all one budget, then we can make up for the shortfall by transferring money from general revenue. Such transfers would be very well justified, since by declaring that the trust fund "doesn't exist", the national debt shrinks enormously, thus releasing large sums of money which would otherwise have been paid to private bondholders in interest on their government bonds.

Personally, I don't like that argument. I think a system as important as social security needs to have a separate budget, and the trust fund must not be raided to cover other revenue shortfalls. You can consider the SS trust fund to be essentially the same as a private pension fund. It could have been invested in shares or corporate bonds - but historically, government bonds have always been the most secure form of investment. Private pension plans therefore do own a certain percentage of government bonds - which the government is obliged to pay back, with interest. Saying that a bond isn't a real asset just because it's held by a government agency is a massive cop-out.

But anyway, the trust fund id due to be expropriated, leaving social security with a deficit. How big is this deficit? About 2% of GDP by most counts, which equates to 37% of payroll tax receipts. That's an interesting number - it's about the same amount the federal government pays as interest on it's debt - a debt that the social security trust fund is being used to pay off. Still think the assets aren't real?
Also, all the tax cuts the Bush Administration has enacted so far (most of which have already become law) will eventually reduce revenue by about 2% of GDP. Some actual figures here: if we had 2040 demographics today (48 retirees for every 100 workers instead of our current 30), SS benefits would exceed payroll tax receipts by about $180 Billion. The Bush Tax Cut, when phased in fully, will reduce revenue by about $170 Billion. According to Alan Greenspan, the tax cut is "quite modest". If so, then the impending SS shortfall is also "quite modest".

We're supposed to believe that the SS surplus is meaningless because it's all one budget, but that SS defecits are a terrible thing because the system must stand on it's own. We can afford a tax cut of $170 billion, but we somehow can't afford to cover the SS defecit which is only a little more than that. Can someone please explain why?

We're supposed to believe that the SS surplus is meaningless because it's all one budget, but that SS defecits are a terrible thing because the system must stand on it's own. We can afford a tax cut of $170 billion, but we somehow can't afford to cover the SS defecit which is only a little more than that. Can someone please explain why?

Because cutting taxes is a cheap and easy political ploy as opposed to the difficult task of solving the real problems in the Federal budget.

And, of course, that $170 billion shortfall is actually a lot bigger than that because the current surplus is being used to fund other obligations. Once that surplus is gone, that's going to leave a gaping hole in our budget barring a serious increase in real revenue and a major cut in spending. Now mind you, the SS system will need reform in and of itself. Benefits need to be adjusted to start at age 75 and then keep being adjusted upward over time to ensure the system isn't overburdened with otherwise perfectly healthy workers.